EDITORIAL : THE GULF TODAY, UAE

New hopes for a better India-Pakistan relationship

It is welcome news that India and Pakistan have agreed to resume direct sporting  relations, including cricket games, after a nearly three-year hiatus.

It is not as much as the spirit of sporting that matters in the decision. It signals a political will in both New Delhi and Islamabad to improve bilateral relations.

According to reports in the Indian media, the decision  as to when exactly to begin sporting interaction with Pakistan has not been made. The reports come two weeks Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh invited his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani to watch their respective teams play in the semi-final of the Cricket World Cup Mohali.

It was indeed a groundbreaking gesture and the latest turn in what has come to be known as cricketomacy in the sub-continent.

It is no secret that India and Pakistan play cricket with each other as if they were waging war. Winning or losing against each other is a highly emotional issue on both sides of the border as could be seen from fan behaviour before, during and after cricket matches between India and Pakistan.

While the two sides have met for international cricket matches in the last three years but have not played each other in India or Pakistan for nearly three years. The last games were held in 2007-08, when the Pakistani team visited India.

Cricket in Pakistan suffered badly after a  gun and grenade assault on the visiting Sri Lankan cricket team in March 2009. International cricket teams refused to visit Pakistan to play any match the attack.

The assault also saw Pakistan stripped of its right to co-host the 2011 Cricket World Cup. And Pakistani players are kept out of the prestigious Indian Premier League, a point that the Pakistani cricket captain, Saeed Afridi, highlighted in recent comments carried in the media.

True, no aspect of any Indo-Pak relationship can be seen without the backdrop of the political divide between them. Cricket is an area where this is better pronounced than most others.

India suspended sporting ties with Pakistan following the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai which were attributed to Pakistani gunmen. New Delhi’s stand was that the government of Pakistan was not doing enough to curb militants plotting and carrying out attacks against Indian targets.

India has also accused Pakistani groups of staging bomb attacks against Indian missions and companies in Afghanistan.

The Islamabad government rejected the charges and asked India for concrete evidence of Pakistani involvement in the attacks so that action could be taken against the perpetrators.

Well, the continuing argument over this issue would get the two countries nowhere. Both are spending massive amounts — relative to their economies — on maintaining a high state of alert along their borders, including the line of control in Jammu and Kashmir. It is elementary that such funds could be used to better serve the people of the two countries if they were to reach a comprehensive agreement on their bilateral disputes. However, there are political forces on both sides that want to perpetuate the state of conflict and that is the biggest challenge facing the two governments.

The bitter dispute is also preventing the two countries from close co-operation in various fields that would benefit both and indeed the region.

The world can only hope that there is enough and strong political will and drive in New Delhi and Islamabad towards moving to settle their differences which pose severe handicaps to the aspirations of development of the people of India and Pakistan.

EDITORIAL : THE JAKARTA POST, INDONESIA

 

Political chameleons

 

The floodgates of reform opened at the end of president Soeharto’s repressive and monarchial New Order have, directly and indirectly, paved the way for unlimited political freedom in Indonesia.

Many things that were unimaginable in the past have become commonplace in the present. Some developments have been good; others have proven unhealthy for the democracy that we have been and will continue to fight for.

The ambiguous nature of certain aspects reform has been underscored by recent chameleon-like changes in the loyalties of the country’s political elites. More precisely, it has become common for politicians to change their party colors ahead of local elections throughout the nation.

The color-changing chameleon offers an apt metaphor for Indonesian politics: local parties are associated with specific colors on ballot sheets: yellow for the Golkar Party, for example, or green for Islamic parties.

The politicans’ opportunism is so blatant and ubiquitous that switching (party) colors might be termed a trend for party executives facing reelection to top posts at the national and regional level.

Recent party-switchers share one thing in common. By and large they have abandoned the parties that backed their campaigns and moved to the big winner of the 2009 election – President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party.

It remains to be seen, however, why many have defected to the Democratic Party. Some might have been driven by a desire to cling to power. Or perhaps the Democratic Party, hoping to repeat its success at the ballot box, has been recruiting incumbent officials to switch parties.

In any event, it is no secret that incumbents have all the benefits when running for office.

The latest incident of party switching is the widely reported exit of West Java deputy governor Dede Yusuf from the National Mandate Party (PAN). After securing his billet running with PAN’s support, the actor-turned-politician has reportedly expressed a desire to run for West Java governor under the banner of the Democratic Party.

Dede never officially confirmed his departure, but PAN chairman Hatta Rajasa said Dede would run. “He said he wanted to be governor, so he needs a bigger party. I said that’s okay,” Hatta said.

Bandung mayor Dada Rosada is on a similar path. Dada, who secured his post with the Golkar Party’s support, has not denied rumors of his move to the Democratic Party — or of his intention to run for West Java governor.

Previously, Tangerang mayor Wahidin Halim, who won his current post with Golkar’s support, moved to Democratic Party and was elected as chairman of the party’s Tangerang branch.

Others party switchers include West Nusa Tenggara Governor Muhammad Zainul Majdi, a Crescent Star Party (PBB) politician who was recently elected as chairman of the Democratic Party’s West Nusa Tenggara chapter; North Sulawesi Governor Sinyo Harry Sarundajang, who won with the support of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) and Makassar mayor Ilham Arif Sirajuddin, a former chairman of Golkar’s South Sulawesi chapter who was elected chairman of the Democratic Party’s local chapter last year.

Incumbent party switching does not violate the Constitution, Indonesian law or regulations, including political parties’ internal regulations. However, the repeated exoduses only raise questions about the commitment of politicians to the noble ethical norm of faithfulness.

Party switching has no legal consequences but it brings with social sanctions: a loss of public respect and trust – and the stigma of being branded as a politician without integrity.

It is their choice.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY TRIBUNE, THE PHILIPPINES

 

Evidence vs perception

The Supreme Court decision clearing businessman Danding Cojuangco of allegations on his having illegally acquired his 20 percent share in San Miguel Corp. (SMC) undoubtedly will be seized upon anew by the Yellow backers of Noynoy to crucify the SC, whose majority members the Yellow crowd considers as remnants of the past and thus are seen as their enemies.

What is being given the spotlight in one Yellow newspaper was a dissenting opinion of one of the senior associate justices that called a “joke” a contrary claim on the close association of Cojuangco and deposed President Ferdinand Marcos, on which hinged the allegation that Cojuangco used crony money to buy his way into controlling SMC and thus make it grow into one of the most successful business giants in Asia.

To back up the opinion, the justice cited the fact that Cojuangco was usually seen in the company of Marcos and was even with the disgraced leader when he was forcibly exiled.

“Clearly, the intimate relationship between Cojuangco and Marcos equates or exceeds that of a family member or Cabinet member, since not all of Marcos’ relatives or high government ministers went with him in exile on that fateful date,” the dissenting opinion went. That constitutes proof that Danding used coco levy funds to acquire his 20 percent SMC shares? Surely, that is an even bigger joke, coming from an SC associate justice.

Apparently, being a friend of a Malacañang tenant translates to that friend given the access to use government funds to purchase shares in a company.

If such is the logic, it should follow that anybody now who is a kin or a close friend of Noynoy who suddenly builds mansions and luxury cars, if not buy up businesses, is not also using that closeness and influence to gain access to borrowing public funds for their personal assets.

The majority SC decision, nevertheless, brought the possibility that after 20 years, the issue on the SMC shares would have found a conclusion. The remaining loose ends would be the obsolete Presidential Commission on Good Government’s (PCGG) plan to seek reconsideration of the ruling.

The argument about Cojuangco’s close association with Marcos, however, remained just that, an opinion, since the government has failed to prove the crony allegation on Cojuangco and that he used his connections with Marcos to benefit his business foray.

The government insisted during the trial of the case that it had proven that Cojuangco received money from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), which administered the coconut levy fund; and that Cojuangco received money from the Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CIIF) Oil Mills in which part of the CIIF or coco-levy funds had been placed and thereby used the funds of the UCPB and CIIF as capital to buy shares in SMC. Yet when one borrows from a bank, such funds do not necessarily come from government deposits.

The majority opinion of the high court clearing Cojuangco stated that the government failed to prove any of its allegations and that government lawyers only succeeded in providing the court “proposed” evidence that “did not materialize.”

“The Republic, being the plaintiff, was the party that carried the burden of proof. That burden required it to demonstrate through competent evidence that the respondents, as defendants, had purchased the SMC shares of stock with the use of public funds; and that the affected shares of stock constituted ill-gotten wealth,” according to the SC ruling.

The SC stated the Republic’s failure to adduce evidence shifted no burden to the respondents to establish anything, for it is basic that the party that asserts, not the party that denies, must prove the charges.

In a nutshell, the SC decision stressed the value of material evidence to establish proof of any allegations which is basic in law practice.

It was a battle between perception and hard evidence and for all of the past 25 yearsm government lawyers failed to establish the grounds for the sequestration of Cojuangco’s assets which they consistently failed to do.

The SC decision, thus, is a delayed vindication for what appeared to be the trampled rights of an individual.

The biggest joke of the century is PCGG’s plan to seek a reconsideration of the SC ruling.

After 25 years of failure, the plea is equivalent to it begging for sympathy from the SC.

EDITORIAL : THE INDEPENDENT, IRELAND

 

Bloody day shows no one is immune from downturn

 

Yesterday's appointment of receivers to Sean Quinn's cement-to-insurance empire and to Derek Quinlan's personal property interests made it one of the bloodiest days so far of the post-Celtic Tiger bust. The demise of Quinn and Quinlan dramatically illustrates that no one, no matter how exalted, is now immune from the effects of the downturn.

While interest in the appointment of a receiver to nine of Quinlan's personal properties will be largely confined to property market specialists, the ripples generated by the Sean Quinn share receivership will spread far more widely.

Sean Quinn was a genuine Irish success story. From a 23-acre farm on the Cavan-Fermanagh border, Quinn built a giant conglomerate. His cement business successfully challenged CRH's monopoly. He built up the largest glass-bottle business in the UK and Ireland from nothing.

In 1996, tired of paying over the odds for insurance, he set up his own insurance company, Quinn Direct. It quickly shook up the market delivering huge savings for motorists and homeowners. The Quinn Group also diversified into radiators, health insurance, hotels and property.

The rise and rise of the Quinn Group turned the one-time captain of the Fermanagh Gaelic football team into the richest man in Ireland, with 'Forbes' magazine estimating his net worth at $6bn (€4.2bn). But the truly remarkable thing was that no one begrudged Sean Quinn his good fortune. Despite his enormous wealth he remained an apparently grounded individual and didn't succumb to airs and graces to which the newly wealthy are frequently prone.

Or so it seemed anyway.

In 2007, for reasons that have yet to be adequately explained, Sean Quinn began to accumulate a huge shareholding in Anglo Irish Bank. This was done in secrecy, with Quinn purchasing his stake using contracts for difference, which at the time didn't have to be disclosed, rather than ordinary shares, which did have to be disclosed. This allowed him to build up an effective 28pc shareholding in Anglo without telling anyone.

His timing couldn't have been worse. By the second half of 2007, with Irish property prices already falling, investors began to dump Anglo shares and the price began its steady slide from a peak of over €17.50 in May 2007 to virtually zero when the bank was nationalised just 20 months later in January 2009.

Not alone had Quinn bought into Anglo at precisely the wrong time, he did so with money borrowed from Anglo. By the time Anglo was nationalised Quinn was nursing losses of €2.8bn.

All of which prompts the question: what on earth was Sean Quinn thinking of when he made his disastrous punt on Anglo? What possessed him to put his life's work and the jobs of his 8,000 employees at risk? This was serious risk-taking. Whatever his motives, such foolhardiness sadly tempers the sympathy so many feel for him in his current predicament.

Following yesterday's appointment of a share receiver, Sean Quinn and the Quinn family have effectively been expelled from the Quinn Group. Which, given all that has happened, is how it should be. The priority now must be to preserve as many jobs as possible within the Quinn Group and for Anglo to recover the maximum possible proportion of the €2.8bn it is owed. As Anglo is now state-owned, any losses on its loans to the Quinn Group will ultimately have to be borne by the taxpayer.

So far the omens are good. Quinn Direct will now be owned by a joint venture between US insurer Liberty Mutual and Anglo. This will allow Quinn Direct to emerge quickly from administration and protect the remaining 1,750 jobs.

Meanwhile, by appointing a share receiver, who took control of the Quinn family's shareholding in the Quinn Group, rather than a conventional receiver who would be legally obliged to quickly sell off assets for whatever price he could get, Anglo has ensured that there will be no fire sale. This is good news for the 2,600 people employed in Quinn Group's manufacturing businesses. Yesterday's developments provide the Quinn Group with a breathing space. With the threat of immediate collapse having now been lifted, Quinn workers and the taxpayer can look forward to a slightly less uncertain future.

 

EDITORIAL : RFI, FRANCE

French press review 14 April 2011

The early runners for next year's presidential election, the rising cost of living and changing the law on prostitution are just some of the stories making headlines in today's French newspapers.

The green activist, Nicolas Hulot has announced his intention to run in the 2012 presidential race. Right-wing Le Figaro is delighted to announce that news, since the two or three per cent of votes which is the most Hulot will get in the first round, will come at the expense of other Left-wing contenders.

That's not something which can be said of Dominique de Villepin, former French prime minister under Jacques Chirac, who has just launched his project for the 2012 elections. Villepin promises to give every person a minimum income of 850 euros per month, which is fighting talk, but that would cost him, or more correctly, the state, the tidy sum of 30 billion euros per annum. Not too easy to find that kind of cash in these tough times. Easy-peasy, says the charming Dominique. You just whack an additional 3% on the tax bill of the better-off, and Bob's yer uncle.

Villepin is about as serious a contender as Hulot, since he has no real political machine, with supporters, crowd-gathers and bill-stickers, never having had to win an election in his life. And he doesn't have much cash to finance a campaign. But he may just nibble away the same percentage on the Right, that Green Nick Hulot will nibble on the Left. So that's fine.

Catholic La Croix looks at the wave of rebellion sweeping the Arab world, starting with the ousting of Tunisian president Ben Ali in January. In Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria, to name just four, the scenario is different, but the underlying desire for more democracy and a fairer division of national wealth is the same. The Catholic daily warns that the Arab spring is still a work-in-progress, and that the outcome remains uncertain.

Libération looks at the debate on prostitution here in France, wondering if the proposal to make the clients the criminals is a good move. The real problem, says the Libé editorial, is that every previous attempt at legislation in this very difficult area has had no other practical effect than to push the women further into invisibility, thus exposing them to even greater risk of exploitation at the hands of pimps and other organisers, or violence at the hands of the clients.

Communist L'Humanité looks at how French companies use job-seekers as unpaid help. The paper follows two young French would-be workers, who trail from in-house training course to in-house training course, with no hope of a real job, no matter how seriously they take the whole business. A specialist interviewed by L'Huma says it's all good news for the share-holders, but it does nothing to help the 620,000 people under the age of 25 who have never had full-time jobs.

One man who is currently out of work is Raymond Domenech, the former French football coach. He, you will remember, left the job under a bit of a cloud after his side was unceremoniously dumped out of the South Africa World Cup. Now he's applied to the employment tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal, and demanding a round three million euros in compensation.

Popular daily Le Parisien asks the crucial question "Should the French be paid more?" Of course they should! Prices of heating, petrol, basic necessities and rent are all going up. Tension is building. Soon it will be the Spring strike season. Expect clashes.

At the other end of the social spectrum, Le Monde looks at the government decision to get rid of tax shields, devices intended to encourage the filthy rich to leave their money in France rather than hide it in Liechtenstein or the Bahamas, with the guarantee that they would not have to pay gazillions in tax. Le Monde says it's the end of one of the key symbols of the Sarkozy era. But, let's be honest, there's an election to be lost and won, and what politician worth the name is going to let old promises get in the way of new ones.

Le Figaro reports that it may soon become possible for small share-holders to buy a few square metres of space in New York's mythic Empire State building, one of Manhattan's most prestigious addresses. That's assuming that the current majority shareholders, the Malkin family, can convince their 3,400 partners that it's a good idea. With office space booming in value in New York, that may not be too difficult. But, even if you do become a shareholder, you'll still have to pay 20 bucks if you want a ticket to the top.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW STRAITS TIMES, MALAYSIA

Patsies for Ponzi schemes

 

ACCORDING to the presiding judge in a suit for claims, the victims of Raja Noor Asma Harun's Ponzi scheme are fools. She decided in their favour, nonetheless, and, as a result, they managed to recover some of their losses. However, these are no ordinary fools. They are well-heeled and educated. Numbering some 4,000, they "invested" RM100 million in all, money they considered "hard-earned". One wonders how lawyers -- including a syarie judge -- and others of similar social standing with "hard-earned" cash to spare could give it over knowingly to an unlicensed futures trader, expecting spectacular returns and, when things go wrong, run to the courts for redress. They should be thankful that judge S.M. Komathy Suppiah, who does not suffer fools, did so this time by allowing claims on about RM8.2 million seized from Raja Noor Asmah.

How is that, even while the high profile Bob Madoff case in the United States was unfolding, obviously middle class Malaysians can so willingly walk into scams? Firstly, they should have known that an investment signed over as a loan was screaming to be investigated. To enthusiastically lend money on promises of high returns smacks of greed under cover of ignorance. Secondly, as an investor, it is assumed that no matter how impressive the fraudster, questions must have been asked to understand the mechanism that can guarantee a return of over 30 per cent a month. Thirdly, as one of the victims admitted, he was aware that he was "lending" his money to an unlicensed futures trader. There is reason to suspect, therefore, that innocent gullibility was not all there was to this.

The lawyer, acting on behalf of the victims, faulted the Securities Commission and Bank Negara for not being more vigilant, but the law is certain: to trade in this fashion, one must be licensed. To want more of these regulatory bodies is perhaps to demand the sort of policing that cannot be reasonably provided. They have often repeated the maxim that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The sad fact is that many Malaysians will part with their money on a whim, long odds notwithstanding. The Malaysian susceptibility to con jobs is legendary. The point here is that once burnt they cannot expect the authorities always to rescue them. Ponzi schemes are fraudulent, as Raja Noor Asma's conviction in January amply attests. In the final analysis, no matter how low impact the education received, being foolish is still very distinct from being greedy. The latter is much less excusable.

 

EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

 

It's Ford's new car plan

THE automaker's cuts underline the sector's problems.

Anyone needing evidence of the hazards of propping up the Australian car industry to quarantine jobs should look no further than yesterday's announcement that Ford Australia will cut its workforce by 240. The decision to reduce daily production of the Falcon and Territory from 260 to 209 because of falling demand comes just two months after car companies extracted a promise from Prime Minister Julia Gillard she would not cut their billions of industry assistance. Since rationalisation of the sector began 25 years ago, tariff cuts have led to more choice and lower prices for consumers, but taxpayers' money continues to underwrite the industry. Ford says jobs will go from Broadmeadows and Geelong but that most workers will be redeployed, with the remainder shed through voluntary redundancies. The strategy to cut volume makes sense. After all, if people aren't buying them, why make them? Ford would be aware of the problems encountered by Mitsubishi a few years back when it discounted the Magna only to see the market collapse. Union leaders blamed the downsizing in part on tariff cuts yet there is no going back on restructuring. After 60 years of support and endless reform plans, the industry continues to face major challenges. By now, the unions and companies should have worked it out.

Who tweets for Aborigines?

A BITTER struggle for authority in indigenous Australia.

The comments were crude in the extreme but the real import of the Twitter commentary about indigenous leader Bess Price is how offensive it is to thousands of Aboriginal men, women and children living in regional and remote Australia. When Larissa Behrendt wrote that Price's appearance on ABC TV was worse than watching "sex with a horse" the city-based legal academic exposed the deep divide in the indigenous community.

Behrendt, who belatedly apologised yesterday, may portray her words as a throw-away comment about Price's performance on Monday's Q&A but there is more going on here. The Twitter exchanges reveal the split between urban and remote Aboriginal leaders over Canberra's intervention in dysfunctional communities. Behrendt's comments are made against the background of a bitter struggle between these two groups for power and the authority to speak for Aborigines. Behrendt and those who joined her on Twitter oppose the intervention but that is really a proxy for a fight over turf, resources and the direction of indigenous politics. Those on Behrendt's side elevate rights and legalities over everything else. But The Australian is on the side of those who believe housing, education and jobs are the pre-eminent steps towards equality.

That Behrendt is herself involved in a racial vilification case against News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt adds irony to her comments. That action has people across the political spectrum concerned because of its implications for free speech. At its core is the identification by Behrendt and others as Aboriginal. This is not the place to argue the merits of the action, but Behrendt's professional career is central to the split exposed on Twitter. Like others who work in the urban indigenous industry, she has built a career on indigenous issues and policy. Like others, she argues against the 2007 intervention initiated in response to appalling levels of violence, addiction and child abuse. Difficult as it is to believe, this newspaper has been lobbied directly by Aboriginal leaders in Canberra to stop reporting on the despair of communities in the far-north, central Australia and the Kimberley, and to focus on success stories of urban Aborigines. In essence, these leaders have urged us to ignore the shameful state of affairs in so many areas and boost the good-news quota in our pages. Such a view is not just out of touch with the needs of remote Aborigines, it casts them as unworthy of attention. These urban dwellers are prepared to risk the health, education, physical safety and futures of other Aborigines in the cause of an out-dated, leftist agenda which privileges "rights" above well-being. There is a "let them eat cake" touch about it all.

All this when there is a largely bipartisan approach on indigenous policy and when non-indigenous Australia is committed to improving the living conditions and education and work opportunities for disadvantaged communities. Many Q&A viewers would have cheered when Price spoke so plainly of indigenous needs. Australians want to see better outcomes and an end to the shameful conditions endured by many Aborigines. Yet the professional class of urban blacks is more interested in bridge walks or the agenda of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The Left once stood for improving the living standards of the poor. Today, it would appear to prefer gesture politics and symbolism.

Union revolt tests Swan's economic resolve on trade

AWU luddites must not be allowed to dictate policy.

If ever a prime minister needed the backing of a strong, effective treasurer it is now, when Julia Gillard finds herself boxed in by the Australian Workers Union, which has threatened to withdraw support for her proposed carbon tax if one job is lost. The union, which is flexing its factional muscle within the ALP in the wake of the demise of the NSW Right at the state election, is also mounting an attack on the Prime Minister's push to liberalise trade policy. Unfortunately for Ms Gillard and the nation's economic interest, Wayne Swan, although he purports to support free trade in principle, opposed Ms Gillard's initiative in cabinet on the dubious grounds that it had no political constituency.

For all their political hostility towards each other, Peter Costello and Paul Keating shared a sound treasurer's instinct for expanding the economy, chopping waste and reform. In contrast, Mr Swan's quest for populist political support is born of his experience as a political neophyte in the Queensland AWU and as ALP state secretary. Such an instinct was evident in the Fuel Watch and Grocery Choice debacles, which were national versions of the Pricewatch surveys that proved popular among pensioners in Mr Swan's Lilley electorate. The original resource super-profits tax, of which Mr Swan was a key driver after he cherry picked a potentially worthwhile idea from the Henry tax review and bungled it, was another populist quest, based on the erroneous idea that workers wanted to see miners slugged and wealth redistributed.

However ruthless AWU national secretary Paul Howes's tactics in contributing to the demise of Kevin Rudd as prime minister and now forcing Ms Gillard's back to the wall over carbon tax and trade policy, Mr Howes's economic instincts are crass and unsophisticated. In declaring that no one with "half a brain" would liberalise trade at a time manufacturing was struggling, he was reflecting the naive views peddled by the AWU in shearing sheds and mining backblocks for generations in Queensland, where past Labor governments ran "government butcher shops".

What Mr Howes, many Queensland Nationals and other agrarian socialist free trade opponents such as Bob Katter fail to grasp is that resources and agriculture, Australia's biggest export industries, whose workers are represented by the AWU, have most to lose from protectionism. As other nations retaliated against Australian protection of manufacturing, some would look elsewhere for commodities and force up the costs of imported machinery with their own tariff barriers -- an equation grasped in the 1860s by the south in the US Civil War but not yet by many in Australia.

Rather than arguing that dismantling trade barriers has boosted prosperity since the Whitlam government slashed tariffs by 25 per cent in 1973, Mr Swan has left Trade Minister Craig Emerson to explain why "trade equals jobs", just as former finance minister Lindsay Tanner was left trying to impose a modicum of fiscal discipline in Labor's first term. It is extraordinary that in 2011, after decades of reforms that opened up the economy, Australia finds itself with a Treasurer who appears to be in sync with some of Mr Howes's views.

EDITORIAL : THE NATIONAL POST, CANADA

 

Barack Obama's billionaire bashing

 

In Canada, we face a Seinfeld election. It's about nothing. We should be grateful. The United States does not face immediate elections, but it does have serious problems (from which, of course, we are not immune). The most immediate is that the government is about to max out on its borrowing limit of US$14.3trillion. Raising that limit will require agreement between President Barack Obama's Democrats and the resurgent Republicans, who recently came up with a plan centred on addressing the country's pubic health millstone with more individual choice and market ingenuity.
On Wednesday, the day Canadian leaders were holding their French-language debate so as not to clash with the NHL playoffs, Mr. Obama responded to the GOP plan in time-honoured leftist fashion: by demonizing his opponents and blaming everything on the rich.
In the Canadian debate, Jack Layton suggested that Mr. Harper was a disciple of George W. Bush. Surely better that than the Prime Minister be a disciple of Mr. Obama, who -with his immutable Big Green Government convictions -represents a combination of Mr. Layton and Elizabeth May.
Mr. Obama's plan to reduce U.S. deficits by US$4-trillion over 12 years was short on substance and long on class war. Yet again, the President put his version of post-partisanship on display: Let's do it my way; all else is "petty bickering."
Under Mr. Obama's sketchy scheme, Obamacare's massive problems will be addressed by more bureaucratic oversight and private-sector arm twisting. Apparently there is little "waste" to be cut from government, but lots of fat in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of Mr. Obama's speech was its repeated denigration of "millionaires and billionaires." He suggested that his nation's massive debt problems were largely due to the tax cuts for "the rich" instigated by George W. Bush. To the extent that anybody was for preserving such cuts, suggested Mr. Owe, they were also in favour of neglecting the old, the young, and the sick; they were for crumbling roads and bridges; they were against the idea of America itself.
Mr. Obama strayed into Jon Stewart land when he suggested "Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut." Well, no, but then Warren Buffett did receive a hefty present from the government's financial bailouts. Indeed, the sage of Omaha wrote an open letter to "Uncle Sam" thanking him for saving his bacon when it came to his investments in Goldman Sachs and Moody's.
One might wonder where the President gets his class warfare economics. Simple. He gets it from Nobel Prize winning economists such as Joseph Stiglitz.
If you want to read some really unhinged wealth bashing, turn to the May edition of Vanity Fair, where Prof. Stiglitz -guru of Keynesianism, anti-globalization and Gross National Happiness -unleashes an attack headed "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%." There the diehard old lefty wheels out slimy semantics, spurious statistics and mushy moralism to heave at both the filthy rich and his main enemy: free markets.
According to Prof. Stiglitz, members of the top 1% don't "earn" their income, or receive it as a return on their investments. They "take" it by exercising monopoly power, or exploiting preferential tax treatment, or otherwise manipulating the system. These people were entirely responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. Strangely, Prof. Stiglitz makes no mention of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or the Fed and fiat money, or of the massive failures of domestic regulation and international oversight, from the SEC to Basel I and II.
Prof. Stiglitz's claim of massive state underinvestment (due to the greedy rich) is also a bit hard to square with the fact that the U.S. government is spending far more than at any time in history, even allowing for Iraq and Afghanistan. Could it be that the problem is not state underinvestment and mean-spiritedness but malinvestment and perverse redistribution? Certainly the U.S. public school system is a disaster, but Mr. Stiglitz seems to have missed the role of powerful teachers' unions in that sorry state.
He claims that the wealthy are more and more reluctant to spend money on "common needs," but how does that square with the "Giving Pledge" sponsored by Bill Gates (whom Mr. Stiglitz suggests became so rich mainly because of "monopoly or near monopoly") and Mr. Buffett?
According to the Vanity Fair hatchet job, the rich control globalization and promote that "race to the bottom." Hell, they don't even serve in the military! They erode national identity and even could be on the point of promoting Middle Eastern and North African-style uprisings! They simply don't "need to care" about economic security, low taxes for ordinary people, good education or a clean environment.
Display blanket prejudice against any other social group -from gays to Muslims -and you'll rightly be pilloried as an intolerant ignoramus. Suggest that the 99th income percentile are malefactors of great wealth and you'll be invited to the White House.
One of the many things Obamanomics doesn't seem capable of comprehending is that lower tax rates go with higher revenues. That is because it tends toward reflexive, primitive, moralistic zero-sum anti-economics, which sees the economy as a thing rather than as a process, and which cannot conceive of some having more without others having less. It might seem strange that such a view should be promoted by Nobel economists, but not if you realize how far economics has been taken over by those who are Robin Hood moralists first, and economists second.
Meanwhile, we should give thanks for our Seinfeld election.

Putting our political disease on display

 

Depressed and disappointed. Those are the two words that encapsulate the reaction of many federalist Canadians to the French leaders' debate. Not simply because the three federalist party leaders gave the impression of fish gasping for air, as they struggled to find words in their second language, but because of what the debate says about the Canadian political system, and our country more generally.
Canada's two solitudes are alive and well. If anything, the gulf between English and French Canada has grown wider in the past five years, in terms of priorities, cultural differences and political attitudes. Stephen Harper's resolution identifying Quebec as a "nation" within Canada -which seemed a good idea at the time -has blurred many of the red lines that used to demarcate what federalists could and could not say. Critics of Michael Ignatieff may not like his Wednesday-night declaration that "You can be a Quebecer or a Canadian in the order you prefer." But once the word "nation" is used by a Prime Minister to describe a Canadian province, all bets are off.
As for Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc Québécois leader's arguments in the French debate could be summed up in two sentences: Quebec should be its own country. Until then, please send money.
Money for forestry companies. For R&D. For HST harmonization. And for Montreal's Champlain Bridge -a local issue that the journalists moderating the debate inexplicably took great pains to emphasize (perhaps they themselves are south-shore commuters). How embarrassingly parochial is it that in a national leaders' debate, the issue of a single bridge took up more time than the environment, international trade or other matters of truly national importance?
Stephen Harper, who was impressively calm during the English debate, occasionally faltered on Wednesday night, his voice rising as he betrayed an (admittedly understandable) irritation at the tone of the discussion. Only when the debate moved to the subject of Quebec's place in Canada did Mr. Harper find his feet -stepping into a pointless back and forth between Messrs. Duceppe and Ignatieff to say, in effect, "this is what you get with a minority Parliament."
As in the English debate, Jack Layton started strong but weakened as the night went on. He came out with a few good one-liners and hockey metaphors. But when he started talking about running for Prime Minister, Mr. Duceppe ran him into the boards with a hockey analogy of his own: "[The Bloc] won't form government, [even though] we've always had more players on the ice than you."
Which, sadly, is true: Thanks to the interplay of regionalism and our first-past-the-post electoral system, the BQ has 11 more seats than the NDP -despite having only about half the NDP's overall national vote.
Having been christened the intellectual heir to Pierre Trudeau, Michael Ignatieff once was seen as a figure who might break through in Quebec. But his Wednesday-night lectures about democracy and the allegedly outdated nature of sovereignty were too professorial: The time when Quebecers went in for this sort of faculty-lounge approach to identity politics is long past. (And, in any event, one glance at the map of the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia proves the argument wrong.) What Mr. Ignatieff might have emphasized instead was that a sovereign Quebec would be an economic basket case -which at least would hit Quebec's upwardly mobile, apolitical middle-class voters where it counts. He might also have played tough guy by declaring: If you want to separate so badly, Mr. Duceppe, go take over the Parti Québécois and stop living off political subsidies from English Canada. Wednesday night's debate needed a federalist bad cop. But instead, all we got were three good cops.
Overall, the debate showed what a destructive force the Bloc has become in Canadian politics. For it is not only an obstacle to majority government, as Mr. Harper noted, but also a permanent distraction for any federalist party seeking to discuss the substantive issues that should be at the forefront of debate -rather than federal-provincial nation-envy, or the funding of a single bridge project.
How long this situation can continue before Canadian federalists get well and truly sick of BQ agitation is anyone's guess. But when the moment does come, the result may be that separation is achieved on the initiative of English Canada, not Quebec -and on terms that neither Mr. Duceppe nor his fellow travellers much like. For now, Quebecers treat a vote for the BQ as a cost-free gesture of nationalist solidarity. But if and when their province gets asked to leave confederation, if only to cure the debilitating regionalism that now infects our political culture, the province's BQ voters may come to regret their choice.

Don't ban the burka

National Post · Apr. 13, 2011 | Last Updated: Apr. 13, 2011 3:46 AM ET

In Canada and other Western nations, there has been an active debate in recent years about when and where Muslim women should be required to remove their face-coverings. (These coverings arise in the form of different garments -including burkas, the shapeless headto-toe garment worn by many women in Afghanistan. But for the purpose of this editorial, we will use the word niqab, which is Arabic for "mask.")
Typically, the most strenuous opposition to this form of ultraconservative dress -which is not mandated by mainstream Islamic religious texts, but which has become part of cultural traditions originating in various parts of the greater Middle East -arises in the context of witnesses appearing in court, voters presenting themselves at the ballot box, driver-licence photographs and other contexts in which ordinary citizens must identify themselves before some state functionary.
But this week, France took the anti-face-covering campaign to a new level: A recently enacted law bans face covering in any public area. Violators are subject to a ¤150 fine (though they also have the option of taking citizenship lessons instead). In essence, face-covering has become akin to its opposite, full nudity -something you can do in the privacy of your own home or hotel room, but just about nowhere else. The sentiment behind the French law is understandable: Whatever Islamists and their scattered secular apologists may say, the niqab is a badge of servility. By obscuring the feature that humans have used to identify one another since the dawn of the species -the face -the niqab communicates the message, never far from the surface in backwards, tribalized societies, that women have no individual character, and are merely some patriarch's fire-tending baby-maker. It is a message that is repugnant to any liberal society such as ours, and should be denounced as such.
But in a free society, people must be free to communicate offensive messages, as much in their dress as in their actual speech. If a Muslim woman is free to state -on a blog, in a book or from a podium -the words "I am a social prisoner of my husband, willing to erase my public identity to fulfil the expectations imposed on me by some retrograde interpretation of Islam," then why can this message not be equally communicated, indirectly, by her dress?
A common objection to this is that niqabbed Muslim women do not dress as they do of their own volition; that they are forced to do so by their husbands and families. And so the fabric on their faces is an artifact of domestic abuse, not a mere article of clothing.
But even in such cases -and no doubt, there are many -what good does it do to attack the symptom of abusive domestic relationships. Canadian households in which women live in fear of their husband should be the subject of police investigation, no matter how a woman appears in public. As we see it, a woman who dresses publicly in jeans and T-shirt but is beaten by her husband behind closed doors represents as much a tragedy as a niqab-clad woman who avoids trouble by silently following her tyrannical relatives' wishes.
The move to ban clothing we don't like sets us down a dangerous path -for there are all sorts of other styles that communicate offensive creeds. The baggy trousers and gangland headgear of many young black men, for instance, can be traced to the influence of African-American prison culture. Are we to ban these clothes, as well, on the basis that they celebrate criminality?
This editorial board does not ordinarily take its cues from Post columnists. But in this case, we are persuaded by the views of George Jonas (whose column on the subject appears elsewhere on today's pages). As the libertarian conscience of Canadian conservatism, and a man whose political memory runs deep into the heart of the 20th-century's most authoritarian movements, he has seen illiberal policies marshalled in the service of protecting liberalism many times. Almost always, history shows these reflexes to have been misguided.
In a liberal society, we all enjoy a baseline right to speak, eat and dress as we please -except when the state has some compelling interest in restricting our choices. The burden of proof must always be on the state in such matters. In neither France, nor Canada, has this burden been met.

EDITORIAL : THE GLOBAL TIMES, CHINA

 

BRICS summit: one for all, all for one

 

The world's West-centric standpoint will not be maintained for long. However, BRICS countries neither seek nor have the ability to establish another political and economic center, accurately reflecting the true state of transition of the international community today.

The national strength of BRICS countries is on the up, but converting strength to power is slow going. They must thus be patient and resist being called an "anti-Western alliance."

The restraint of emerging countries and the generosity of Western countries are both indispensable. It is not justified to refuse more development rights to BRICS countries, but the feelings of the developed countries should also be taken into consideration.

BRICS countries look forward to increased cooperation. The public opinions in the five countries are in favor of more political coordination and diplomatic development. The Sanya Declaration criticized the NATO bombing of Libya, and in doing so became the most forceful voice of opposition against the air strikes.

Among the five BRICS countries, China, with the strongest comprehensive strength, is the most persistent in low-key diplomacy, which prevents the organization from being seen as opposed to the West at its inception. However, Russia and India will also affect China. We believe that the BRICS summit might help China to express itself truly.

A West-centric perspective must experience the changes of a new era. Emerging countries do not challenge the West, but nor should they worship it.  If the West is not broad-minded enough to face this reality, there is sure to be a tough road ahead.

The strength of BRICS countries comes from economic growth. Sooner or later, the total economic output of BRICS countries will surpass that of the G7, which will impact the world to a greater extent than the rise of the former Soviet Union.

Differing from the Soviet Union, BRICS countries have not used political expansion and military threats as a tool to become stronger. These countries may create a turning point in human history and promote peaceful competition to gradually become a fundamental part of the changing world. This sounds a little idealistic, but given the strength of BRICS countries and the increasingly high cost of trying to prevent their ascent, BRICS countries will continue to strengthen cooperation along this path.

Despite mutual competition, BRICS countries can take unified action in issues related to rights of development and world peace. The EU's unification diplomacy has often failed. BRICS countries are able to do better than EU in terms of coordination. The unified voice at this summit is a good start.

The five BRICS countries should be aware that this mechanism is for strategic cooperation, to ensure the rights of free development and to prevent developed countries from seeking purely self-serving methods.

The total population of the BRICS accounts for 42 percent of the world population, so it will naturally be a complicated process to defend their development rights.

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY YOMIURI, JAPAN

 

Devising restoration programs No. 1 priority for government

The Yomiuri Shimbun

The Great East Japan Earthquake has caused declines in both the production and consumption of various goods. There are fears the situation will slow down the economy.

The government downgraded its basic assessment of the nation's economy in its monthly economic report for April, saying: "It is now showing some weakness." The government's report for the previous month said the economy was "looking to pick up."

This likely means the economy, which had been slowly recovering, started to decline because of the impact of the terrible disaster. The damage caused by the quake and tsunami is so immense that a temporary economic slowdown is unavoidable. What is important now is to prevent aggravation of the slowdown.

The government and the Bank of Japan must do their best to prevent the Japanese economy from falling into a quake-induced recession, through the flexible implementation of necessary policy measures.

===

Help small firms, self-employed

Many firms and factories in areas hit by the March 11 quake and tsunami do not know when they will be able to restart operations. Many people do not know which way to turn, having lost both their homes and jobs.

First, programs should be devised as soon as possible to help small and midsize companies and self-employed people trying to restart production of goods and other business operations.

Most important is for the government to quickly compile a supplementary budget for this fiscal year and pass it in the Diet to start full-fledged restoration efforts.

When fiscal funds are injected, demand and employment will be created in the disaster-hit areas. The restoration programs will surely become a foothold for people to reconstruct their lives.

Financial support measures also should be expanded greatly, including public loan programs to help the fund-raising efforts of small and midsize companies.

The Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995 had almost no adverse effect on the overall economy, as the demand generated by restoration programs supported the economy.

This time, however, the disaster struck over a vast area. Many parts factories were destroyed or damaged, resulting in supply shortages for various products. As a result, the production of automobiles and other items was suspended all over the country.

The situation was further exacerbated by the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. in Fukushima Prefecture.

Economic activities around the nuclear power plant have been paralyzed. Due to radioactive contamination, restrictions are still in place on shipments of agricultural products, and fishermen are refraining from going out in their boats.

===

Overreactions damaging

Damage caused by rumors is also expanding, with overreactions in other countries particularly noticeable. Some countries have demanded certificates guaranteeing there are no radiation problems with not only food products but even industrial goods from Japan. The number of foreign tourists in the country has also sharply declined.

To prevent the acceleration of this "stay away from Japan" phenomenon, we urge the government and TEPCO to bring the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 plant under control as soon as possible.

The atmosphere of self-restraint that has prevented people from traveling and holding parties has led to a decline in consumption. We must return to normal purchasing activity.

Scheduled power outages in the Tokyo metropolitan area have come to an end for now, but the shortage of power remains the most significant factor preventing a return to the robust production of goods.

Both the government and the private sector must rack their brains for ways to increase power supply capacity and effectively save electricity in summer, when demand will rise due to increased use of air conditioning.

Organ transplants mark medical, legal milestone

The Yomiuri Shimbun

The heart, lungs and other organs of a boy who was declared brain-dead after he sustained serious head injuries in a traffic accident were being transplanted into five patients on Wednesday.

It was the first time for organ transplants to be made from a brain-dead child under 15, in accordance with the revised Organ Transplant Law that took effect in July. The heart of the donor, identified only as a boy from 10 to 14 years old, was transplanted to a boy in his late teens, in line with a new rule of prioritizing young recipients for heart transplants from donors under 18.

The fact that an organ transplant from a donor under 15--which was only possible abroad before the law's revision--has become a reality in Japan may be the first step toward a day when all necessary organ transplants can be carried out within the country.

The relevant law, which originally came into force in 1997, allowed organ transplants only if would-be donors themselves had made clear their intention of donating organs through written forms such as donor cards.

Under the Civil Code, a legal declaration of intent can be made only by those aged 15 or above, effectively forbidding the transplant of organs from donors under 15.

===

Child patients driven abroad

Consequently, parents of infants who needed small internal organs had no option but to go abroad in the hope of receiving organ transplants.

Such cases of families seeking transplants abroad because it was impossible at home drew international criticism.

The revision of the transplant law was also prompted by new guidelines adopted by the World Health Organization, which urge countries to carry out transplants domestically.

The revised law, like those adopted in Europe and the United States, makes it possible for organs to be donated based on the decision of the would-be donor's family, as long as the brain-dead patient, irrespective of age, has not previously made a clear refusal to donate organs.

In the latest case, the diagnosis of brain death and the donation of organs were made with the approval of the young donor's family, including his parents.

Over a period of 13 years until the law's revision, there were 86 cases of organ transplants from brain-dead donors. Within the nine-month period since the revision, there have already been 42 cases of organ transplants, with the "relay of life" running at a pace nearly 10 times faster than before.

===

Stick to proper procedures

Sooner or later, there will be donations of organs from even younger children. In the case of child donors, the brain death diagnosis should be conducted with utmost strictness, making sure the children have not been abused by their parents.

In the latest case, the process by which these matters were properly checked and confirmed has been disclosed to a certain extent. But it is necessary to disclose more detailed information, including how the relevant examination and discussions were carried out within the hospital before the donor was declared brain-dead.

To foster trust in organ transplants from children, strict verification must be carried out.

We cannot help thinking about the importance of the parents' decision to consent to organ donation, even in the midst of their sorrow over the loss of their beloved son, who until recently had his own future.

The parents said in a statement: "Our son used to say that he would some day like to achieve something great and useful to society. Making use of his body for people who will live on thanks to the gift of his organs is in keeping with his wishes."

To further fulfill the wishes of the boy and his parents, we should continue to steadily advance in the organ transplant field.

EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, UK

 

Policing demonstrations: Grounds for protest

It is increasingly clear that something had gone badly awry with the Met's handling of protests in 2009

No one would dispute that policing a charged protest is a difficult task, requiring delicate judgments that must be made under great pressure. Certainly, the high court would not deny it, and yesterday it did all it could to be fair to the Metropolitan police, as it passed down a ruling on the containment, or so-called "kettling", of demonstrators who had assembled to make their point as the world's leaders swept into London for the G20 summit two years ago. The court cited examples of mad men running amok with guns, and quoted all manner of precedents to make the point that there is a distinction between the necessary restriction of liberty and the unlawful deprivation of it.

For all its understanding of the police's predicament, the court ruled that the Met had slid from one to the other, by acting in a manner that was "not necessary or proportionate". The police had, after all, swept up a great mass of innocent citizens and indiscriminately detained them along with any troublemakers, on a day when one chant in the air was "this is not a riot". There were two protests that day, a disorderly gathering known as Meltdown, and the more pacific Climate Camp, with which yesterday's ruling was concerned. The police failed to distinguish adequately between the different moods of the two, and casually kettled the Climate Camp because of the supposed danger of them intermingling.

With the inquest into the death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson rumbling on amid suspicions that there were attempts to cover up the police blows he received that same day, it is increasingly clear that something had gone badly awry with the Met's handling of protests in 2009. At the start of that year Lois Austin, a protester who had been kettled several years previously, lost an action she had taken all the way to the law lords. The top brass did not concern themselves with the nuance of the ruling, and instead appear to have deemed themselves to be free to restrain demonstrators at will. Chilling remarks from officers about imposing control on demonstrations pre-emptively combine with the lack of proper procedures to prevent the cavalier brandishing of riot shields as a weapon, another shortcoming the courts picked up on yesterday, to suggest a force that had lost all respect for the right to assembly.

Things could get more difficult still for the Met, depending upon the Tomlinson verdict and the progress that Ms Austin makes with her case at Strasbourg. At stake in the latter is, potentially, the legality of the whole kettling tactic. Wherever that gets to, yesterday's ruling has removed any doubt that it must be a last resort. Around the G20 it was not, and so the police are deservedly being brought to book. 

Immigration: Living with diversity

There is a history of deploying immigration as an issue when the Tories need to restore the confidence of core supporters

It was the first speech of the local election campaign, so perhaps it is not surprising that David Cameron's claim yesterday that immigration has damaged social cohesion so comprehensively captured the front pages. In its content and its timing it had all the hallmarks of the kind of smooth strategic planning that the Conservative party has often done so effectively but which Downing Street has struggled to reproduce in the past year. The party machine has wrested back control of the political message with predictable results and some collateral damage to the coalition.

Conservatives complain that their critics never allow them a right time to talk about migration. But that is because there is a long history of deploying it as an issue just at the point when the party needs to restore the confidence of its core supporters. And there is no doubt that Mr Cameron has vociferous critics on his own backbenches. The more outspoken ponder openly whether the party leader is really a Conservative at all. And while tracking polls never suggest much support for alternative parties of the right such as the UK Independence party, at last month's Barnsley byelection Ukip beat both of the coalition parties. The start of a local election campaign which will be difficult for the Conservatives and possibly disastrous for the Lib Dems seems too needy a moment for a speech on immigration to be treated as anything more serious than a piece of politicking.

Of course, Mr Cameron is anxious to signal that he understands voters' concerns, that there is something that can be done about them, and that he is doing it. His tone was generally moderate, and it is true that immigration worries people in a way that the last government was slow to appreciate. It is also the case, however, that migration from other EU countries is not something the UK government can directly affect, although making sure that British people have the right skills for whatever jobs are locally available would be one way of reducing the appeal of the UK as a destination. Most migrants last year – two-thirds, according to the Office for National Statistics – came from outside the EU, and they came to work or to study. Many of those who came to work will have taken seasonal jobs, although they have in places (some of which, like North Lincolnshire, have local elections in three weeks' time) put very heavy burdens on community infrastructure. That makes it even more curious that the government has cut the cash for the migration impacts fund that Labour introduced and abandoned the citizenship survey which sought to monitor the impact of new migrants. And the axe – curiously, since in his speech Mr Cameron also complained that not enough migrants speak English – has fallen too on the budget for English language teaching. But most importantly, neither immigration nor ethnicity is the primary predictor of a lack of social cohesion. Instead, as the most recent research has shown, it is the level of economic deprivation. Neighbourliness and extreme poverty tend not to go together.

Meanwhile, Mr Cameron appeared to be playing fast and loose with the coalition agreement. That was certainly what the business secretary, Vince Cable, thought. It is true that the half page of the agreement in which migration appears avoids all mention of targets. That has not prevented the government making a clear commitment to halve net migration to 100,000 in this parliament. Mr Cable argued strongly against limiting highly skilled workers and the graduate students who make such a large contribution to university budgets, but he won only a partial victory. That may explain his initial denunciation of Mr Cameron for inflaming extremism, and his subsequent recantation. The next three weeks will be a severe test as the parties establish the load-bearing capacity of a coalition in an election. Expect more of the same.

In praise of … David Runciman

This political scientist's insights about the real world often take the form of a paradox which baffles before it enlightens

The political science is just as dismal as the economic one. Its models, schemas and game theories can provide any insight – except for those shedding light on the real world. David Runciman stands out as a practitioner who can deploy all these tricks where they're useful and put them back in their box the moment they're superfluous to making sense of politics. He has drawn a telling distinction between "sincere liars", such as Blair and Clinton, and "honest hypocrites", such as Gordon Brown, a condition which he shrewdly predicted would leave Brown ill-suited for life at the top. His London Review of Books essays range from cricket to Dylan to America's death tax, and whatever the subject he produces a paradox which baffles before it enlightens. At a sweeping London lecture on Wednesday, which drew on world history to assess democracy's chances of withstanding everything from China to climate change, his love of seeming contradictions was much in evidence. Democracies only fight wars they can win, he explained, except when the confidence born of this rule tempts them into misadventures that break it. His quirky syllogisms lend themselves to pleasing rhetoric, as when he distinguished the "trick" and the "trap" views of democracy according to whether people power is too good to be true or instead too true to be good, a phrase reversal worthy of Kennedy or Churchill. If he came down from his ivory tower and took to a soap box, the politicians he studies would need to watch out.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

 

Stop the Blame Game

After more than two weeks under attack by NATO forces, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi is still slaughtering his people and showing no sign that he plans to give up. NATO and coalition partners are pointing fingers of blame at each other for this frustrating state of affairs, but what they should be doing is creating a renewed sense of common purpose and direction.

At a meeting in Doha, Qatar, on Wednesday, senior Western, Arab and African allies made some progress. They called jointly for the first time for Colonel Qaddafi to step aside, promised to work on a mechanism to funnel frozen Libyan assets to the cash-strapped rebels and urged a political settlement. But then one day later, NATO foreign ministers could not resolve deep differences over crucial details of the war the alliance began three weeks ago to counter an onslaught by Colonel Qaddafi’s planes, helicopters, tanks and mortars. The main dispute: How to persuade Mr. Qaddafi to cede power.

The British and French are especially frustrated that NATO air power backed by United Nations sanctions has not forced Mr. Qaddafi out or halted the shelling of the city of Misrata, under siege for six weeks.

It is always a long shot when an untrained opposition goes against a ruthless dictator with a well-equipped army. But tactical conflicts and the lack of clear goals are making it even harder.

American planes dominated the early phase of airstrikes, then turned over major responsibility to France, Britain and a non-American NATO command. Now with Colonel Qaddafi thwarting NATO by hiding heavy weapons in heavily populated neighborhoods, Paris and London are insisting that more countries are needed to attack ground targets, not just enforce the no-flight zone.

The American A-10 antitank aircraft and AC-130 ground attack gunship used earlier in the Libya fighting are uniquely suited to make precision strikes on ground targets without unduly endangering civilians. Mr. Obama should authorize them to fly again under NATO command.

With the United States bogged down in two other wars, President Obama was right to step back quickly and let the Europeans take the lead. Other countries — including Italy, Spain, Germany and the Netherlands — should do more to help. So far only six of the alliance’s 28 members are striking targets. NATO also needs to work harder with rebel forces on choosing ground targets.

Libya is a test of whether NATO can succeed at a mission in which the United States plays a support rather than a lead role. Results are decidedly mixed. A quick and peaceful outcome is in Europe’s direct interest, especially Italy’s. It faces an influx of refugees. Britain and France need to firmly make that case to their European partners.

The coalition should consider allowing countries to arm the rebels if they choose. The weapons must be defensive and training provided. Qatar, one of the few Arab countries contributing warplanes to the air campaign, helped the rebels sell oil to buy weapons and supplies. Britain offered 1,000 sets of body armor. We are encouraged that talk of sending foreign forces into Libya — a very bad idea — has quieted.

No political settlement in which the dictator remains in place will work. The West and its partners must be ready to maintain political, economic and military pressure until he is gone.

An Undemocratic Bailout

Portugal needs international help to meet its debt obligations. But the insistence by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund that the caretaker Portuguese government commit to a long-term plan of fiscal austerity and economic reform in exchange for a rescue package is misguided.

The government of Prime Minister José Sócrates fell in March after the opposition rejected its austerity plan to address the economic crisis and is holding on to office only until special elections, which are scheduled for June 5. Not only would any reform package from the outgoing government lack legitimacy, it would lack credibility with investors, who would suspect the next government might not live up to what will inevitably be very painful terms.
Rather than try to hammer out a definitive package, the European Union and the I.M.F. should give Portugal a bridge loan and wait to negotiate a deal until there is a new government in place. This would give Portuguese voters a chance to vote on proposals by each party to address the emergency.
In the meantime, Europe needs to rethink its all-pain-all-the-time approach to bailouts. The terms imposed on Greece and Ireland are stifling growth. On Wednesday, Germany acknowledged Greece may have to restructure its debts — rather than pay them in full.
Representatives from the European Union and the I.M.F. landed in Lisbon on Tuesday to negotiate a bailout plan expected to be worth $115 billion. The formula, by now, is predictable: deep budget cuts, cuts to public-sector wages and tax increases. They are also likely to demand that Portugal privatize state-run enterprises and reform labor laws to make it cheaper to hire and fire workers.
The approach assumes sharp fiscal tightening will right Portugal’s finances, ignoring how a precipitous drop in government spending will cripple growth and Portugal’s ability to repay its debts. And it is unjust, demanding outsize, lasting sacrifices from the Portuguese people in order to repay Portugal’s creditors 100 cents on the euro.
There is time to get this right. Lisbon appears to have the funds it needs to meet a $7 billion debt-service payment coming due on Friday. While it does not have the money to meet a $10 billion payment on June 15, the European Union could provide short-term financing — with few strings attached — until a definitive deal could be negotiated with the new government. That is the best hope of coming up with a deal that Portugal’s new government and its voters can support — and one creditors will trust.

The Republican Medicare Reshuffle

Representative Paul Ryan and the House Republicans are portraying their budget proposal for the next fiscal year as a courageous effort to finally bring federal spending on Medicare under control. An analysis issued last week by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that the Ryan proposalwould sharply reduce federal spending — but at the price of shifting more of Medicare’s costs onto beneficiaries and their families.
How much more? Calculations derived from the C.B.O. analysis show that in 2022, when the Ryan plan would kick in, the typical 65-year-old would pay $6,400 to $7,000 more per year than would be paid for comparable coverage under traditional Medicare.
Mr. Ryan’s proposal would change Medicare from an entitlement program in which the government pays for a defined set of medical services into a “premium support” program in which the government would give beneficiaries money to help them buy private insurance. He contends that competition among health care plans and more judicious use of health care services by beneficiaries can help bring down the cost of health care and reduce the federal government’s burden.
But the C.B.O. says a private plan offering comparable benefits would be a lot more expensive than traditional Medicare because the private insurer would have higher administrative costs, would need to make a profit and, in an extrapolation of current trends, would pay hospitals, doctors and other providers substantially more than Medicare does. Beneficiaries would have to pay higher out-of-pocket costs or buy skimpier policies.
The Ryan plan has no chance of becoming law while the Democrats still control the Senate and the White House. But if health care becomes a defining issue in the 2012 elections — as it should — everyone under the age of 55 is on notice that Mr. Ryan’s plan would impose heavy costs on them when they reach age 65.

Memo to Arizona Republicans: Papers, Please

The Republicans who control the Arizona Legislature are back at it. The Senate just passed a bill that would bar presidential candidates from the ballot in Arizona unless they submitted extensive paperwork proving they were natural-born Americans.

That means, specifically, a sworn affidavit stating citizenship and age; a long-form birth certificate showing date and place of birth, name of hospital and doctor, and witness signatures; and a sworn statement listing a candidate’s places of residence for the last 14 years. The bill was amended slightly before passing: if a candidate doesn’t have the long-form certificate, supporting evidence like baptismal or circumcision records or notarized affidavits from witnesses could also suffice.

Even that will not necessarily be enough to get on the ballot. Arizona’s secretary of state would have to agree that the records satisfied the requirements. If not, he or she could establish a committee to investigate and submit documents “for forensic examination.”

Whatever happens, nobody is going to pull one over on Arizona. Representative Carl Seel, who has sponsored the same legislation in the Arizona House, insists that this has nothing to do with President Obama or the absurd claims that he’s not an American citizen. Instead, he calls it an “integrity measure,” meant to ensure that the state would never elect candidates who are ineligible.

The base political motivations behind all of this should be clear. But if Arizona’s Republicans are really so devoted to the idea, they should put their own papers where their mouths are.

Senate President Russell Pearce and every senator who voted for the bill and every House member who plans to, should gladly and swiftly post their sworn affidavits along with their birth certificates, baptismal and other records online for the world to see. If this is really a question of integrity, what are they waiting for?

EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

Possible compromise?

 

AMIDST the conflicting claims made anonymously by Pakistani and American security officials over the issue of drone strikes and secret US operatives on Pakistani soil, there appear to be hints about the possibility of compromise by both sides. On drone strikes, `expanded cooperation` may be on the cards while the US may share some information on its intelligence operations inside Pakistan. This would partially meet the security establishment`s desire to limit the American `footprint` and the scale of its operations in the country while allowing the Americans to continue covert programmes with enhanced Pakistani assistance/knowledge. If there is any truth to the speculation about both sides working towards a compromise — it is difficult to say with certainty what may be happening behind the scenes — then it should be welcomed for several reasons.

First, the very public bickering and recriminations between the US and Pakistan will almost certainly be hampering the fight against militancy. If principals on both sides are arguing, it means they are distracted from thinking about fresh ways to squeeze the militants. Since the Raymond Davis spanner in relations, countless hours have been lost arguing over flaccid rules of cooperation and poorly demarcated red lines that should never have been in doubt in the first place. At some point, a dispute over tactics needs to be put to rest, and that point has surely come. Second, anything that helps clarify the apparently flaccid rules of cooperation and poorly demarcated red lines is a good thing going forward, particularly since the end game in Afghanistan is imminent and strategic tensions are expected to flare up again. It is difficult to say which side is painting an accurate picture about the drone strikes. An American `go it alone` approach on drone strikes in Fata would suggest that the US has developed an intelligence capability in the area previously considered unlikely. Frankly, that would be an alarm-ing development. While drone strikes have some limited counter-terrorism potential — particularly when it comes to taking out high-level targets — they seem to have become a particularly addictive tool for the Americans. Perhaps lacking any good options, the drone strikes are a way of `doing something`. So the capability to independently launch strikes may tempt the US to use the drones even more, irrespective of their efficacy. That can in no way be a good thing for Pakistan.

Finally, arguing over activities in Pakistan will almost certainly be delaying thorny debates over the future of Afghanistan, where arguably the real differences lie. Afghanistan is an intractable enough problem without letting distractions in Pakistan get in the way.

Still missing

 

IN the latest development in Pakistan`s missing people saga, the Supreme Court on Wednesday summoned a slew of senior officials, including the interior minister, provincial home secretaries and the inspectors general of police of the four provinces, to explain why hundreds of missing people have still not returned home. The same day, an activist group wound up a 10-day camp in the capital protesting delays in the recovery of those who have disappeared from Balochistan; now that the dead bodies of missing Baloch have begun turning up, the matter has taken an even more serious turn in that province. Indeed, nearly a year and a half since the SC took up the issue of forced disappearances again, this serious human rights violation remains unresolved. Although the court claimed on Wednesday that over 220 people had been recovered through its efforts, an activist group said the number of missing people has risen to nearly 350. The fact that reports about such disappearances are still appearing in the media, especially from Balochistan, only confirms that even as some progress has been made, people continue to be picked up and detained without trial.

That said, there is only so much the courts can do. No judicial commissions and no number of hearings can be successful without the cooperation of the government and the security establishment. In order for this problem to be resolved, the civilian administration would have to demonstrate the will to pursue it with determination and persistence and the courage to ask questions of the law-enforcement and intelligence agencies that activists and families of missing people claim are responsible. In turn, these agencies would have to be willing to accept that such detentions are unacceptable, return people to their homes and charge them with any wrongdoing through legal channels. The SC has declared that 2011 will be the year of the recovery of missing people. But the foot-dragging and obstruction that have characterised investigations so far do not provide much hope that this national embarrassment will be resolved any time soon.

CNG strike

 

THE strike by CNG dealers in Punjab and Islamabad has affected life badly. The majority of CNG filling stations there have remained closed for the last two days on the call of the All Pakistan CNG Association, which is demanding an end to the two-day mandatory weekly holiday for CNG stations. Though a few CNG dealers opted not to support the strike call, the shortage had a huge impact, even troubling those travelling in petrol-driven vehicles. In Lahore, for instance, many petrol stations ran out of supplies because of a sudden surge in demand. Where petrol was still available, the consumers had to wait in long queues. Many preferred to skip work instead of waiting for their turn at petrol stations or spending more money on travel than they would have had to if CNG was available.

The CNG dealers` demand to end the weekly holiday for the sector is difficult to meet given the massive gas shortages in Punjab particularly. The dealers are angry that the government `prefers` industry and the power sector over them while distributing gas shortages amongst different sectors of the economy. This is misleading. Industry, including captive power plants, is facing a three-day weekly gas closure. It is important that industry, especially export-oriented units, gets priority over other gas consumers if jobs are to be protected and exports increased. The gas supplies for power generation can also not be cut in view of the growing demand for electricity in summer. This doesn`t mean the grievances of the CNG sellers or consumers are not genuine; only that the government is helpless to address the problem to everyone`s satisfaction. It is time to consider other options, such as the import of LNG which the government can undertake in partnership with the private sector.